The year 2003 profoundly marked the Orthodox Church through the constant
confrontations between her church leaders. Such showdowns,
focused mainly on the distribution of power, gave rise to new
questions among the flock and seem to have established an even
greater distance between them and their Church. At the same time, efforts to re-open
the Theological School of Halki failed miserably, leaving this
crucial matter in tatters. On the Inter-Orthodox and
ecumenical scene, the wounds continue to bleed and to test the
credibility of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the field of
Church relations.

Among the many events that unfolded
within the realm of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 2003, two
main issues deserve particular attention:

the conflict between the Patriarchate and Archbishop Stylianos of
Australia; and

the confrontation between the
Patriarchate and the Church of Greece over the issue of the
so-called "New Lands" in Northern Greece.

The contrasts in question are of exceptional importance in that they
seriously damaged the prestige of the Patriarchate with
unanticipated consequences as to the role it seeks to play
within its own jurisdiction as well as at a Pan-Orthodox
level.

1. The conflict with Archbishop Stylianos of
Australia is due to Patriarchate schemes to decrease the power
and authority of archbishops in charge of the Throne's major
archdioceses around the world by provocatively curtailing
their rights. Even if these efforts often contradict the
canonical tradition of the Church, they are usually very
easily surmounted by the Phanar due to the singular
composition of the Patriarchal Synod - a compostion that leads
to a systematic and constant synodical alignment with the
Patriarchate leadership.

The fact is that the hierarchs
in charge of the Throne's dioceses outside Turkey, as
non-Turkish citizens, are devoid of the right to partake in
the Patriarchal Synod. In other words, they are unable to
fulfill their synodical duties and thus remain excluded from
the decision-making process on all vital church issues. As
many may know, the Patriarchal Synod, in its majority, is
composed of titular metropolitans residing in Turkey who
really have no possibility of differentiating their stance
from that of the Patriarchate leadership. Moreover, because of
their isolation, they have no other choice than to base
themselves on the selective information provided by said
leadership and thus, as a rule, are incapacitated to follow
developments in the Throne's dioceses across the
world.

It is precisely this singular way in which the
Patriarchal Synod operates that Archbishop Stylianos of
Australia has been denouncing for quite some time through
articles that are extremely impressive in their logical
structure and theological depth. According to Archbishop
Stylianos, "the synodical structures of the Church are idle"
today and the current Patriarchate leadership "disdains the
inviolable canonical rights of Archpastors outside Turkey." He
stresses that such bishops make up "95% of the entire
Patriarchate Hierarchy" and yet have no possibility of
participating in the decision-making process on the weightiest
church issues (financial management, election of bishops,
creation or modification of dioceses).

The hierarchs' voices are multiplying rapidly throughout the world, claiming
a reacquisition of their synodical role - a constitutive
element of their Episcopal identity - in the co-administration
of the Church. Besides, it should not be forgotten that the
exclusion of the "New Lands" hierarchs from the Patriarchal
Synod immediately after 1922 ultimately led to the creation of
the New Lands ecclesiastical regime in 1928. One wonders
whether those in power today at the Phanar still remember
this. Or will this case be handled by the Phanar in such a
manner that the New Lands painful historical precedent will
ultimately act as a catalyst in a evolutionary course that
will lead, sooner or later, to the re-establishment of "truths
and apostolic traditions as these are incarnated by the Holy
Canons"?

2. On the other hand, the conflict between
the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece over the
issue of the so-called "New Lands" has taken on enormous
proportions in the Greek as well as in the international
press, mainly because excess recriminations and big talk have
challenged the believers' sensibilities!

The New Lands issue, regulated by the Patriarchal Act of 1928, was sparked
initially by the metropolitans of these dioceses because of
their exclusion from the Patriarchal Synod immediately after
the Greece's defeat in Asia Minor (1922). The Act, an
agreement with the Autocephalous Church of Greece, provided
the New Lands hierarchs with the possibility to exert their
inalienable synodical rights within the frame of the Synod of
the Church of Greece, while their dioceses, continuing to
remain under the "spiritual" jurisdiction of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, were incorporated in the administrative system
of the Church of Greece. Considered from a canonical point of
view, this was indeed an awkward agreement without precedent
in the history of the Church.

The Church of Greece never demonstrated particular sensitivity in complying with
the whole of the Act. As a rule she invoked the
incompatibility of certain clauses thereof with Greek
legislation. In time of intense relations, her hierarchs even
reached the point of questioning the canonicity of the Act. Be
it as it may, pacta servanda sunt! This is what truth and
integrity demand, especially within the Church!

However, the Phanar's timing for demanding full implementation of the
1928 Act was highly unfortunate. On the one hand, the Greek
government, due to current pre-electoral concerns, shrank from
supporting the Patriarchate even in the least. On the other,
the majority of Greece's hierarchy, including the majority of
the New Lands metropolitans in particular, had long made clear
its anti-patriarchal views. The conditions were indeed most
unfavorable and any precautious leadership would have
discerned the situation beforehand.

The major slip-up however was in seeking a direct confrontation with a popular
and powerful opponent as the current Primate of the Church of
Greece, reputed for his grandiose vision in regard to the
future jurisdiction of the Church of Greece.Wrong
timing and definitely a wrong opponent!

The outcome of the confrontation was foreseeable. The leadership of the
Church of Greece, supported by the overwhelming majority of
the Greek hierarchy and favored by the political momentum,
imposed itself from the very beginning as master of the game,
immune to the unnecessary and empty threats that were
undoubtedly not the most successful expression of Phanariote
diplomacy ...

The impact of the confrontation was
extremely painful for the Patriarchate. It missed the
opportunity to settle a long pending thorny issue and, perhaps
even more importantly, it forever lost the hope of having the
issue reconsidered on its true ecclesiastical
basis.

Mainly, however, the inopportune confrontation
demonstrated the inability of the Patriarchate to impose its
claims, thereby damaging its prestige and authority
irreparably. The conflict gave rise to countless negative
articles and grave statements against the Patriarchate and
revealed its shocking isolation on a political and grassroots
level. The feeble, sporadic manifestations in support of the
Patriarchate, mainly in Crete and the Dodecanese, as well as
certain hopeless efforts to collect signatures among
intellectuals and politicians, emphasized its current state of
seclusion.

It is certainly not accidental that the
Turkish Government, informed of such developments and their
true significance, made it immediately clear that the issue of
the re-opening of the Theological School of Halki can be
negotiated only on a "base of reciprocity," thus putting
unrealizable conditions on Greece and, in essence, bringing
all pertinent discussions to a close.

The choice of a head-on confrontation on the New Lands issue, hasty
assessments and the inept handling of the case have wounded
the Patriarchate beyond repair. Unfortunately for the historic
Phanar, the negative impact of such failure seems to be
immeasurable not only in Greece but also at a Pan-Orthodox and
international level.